Is this true? 54s not supported? Including repairs out of warranty? No C1? Was this done to spite me for selling my P30+?

Quote from: Juanito

I'm really happy with my Leaf Aptus 22. It shoots at around a frame a sec. I've never had to wait for it. Shooting MF is just a slower process than shooting small format. Usually, I'm popping 7b's when I shoot with it so it's the strobe recycle that holds me up.

In talking to Steve at Capture Integration yesterday, he informed me that the 54s is not going to be serviced by the new Leaf company nor are there likely to be software upgrades and such. The Aptus 22 however, which is older, looks like it will be serviced by Leaf and will hopefully be supported by Capture 1 when they update it for Leaf.

If you're expecting MF to behave like small format, you'll be disappointed. Best just to stick with Canon or Nikon if that's the case.

I understand the rolling of eyes about learning *yet another software* but it appears to most observers that current RAW processor workflow is very similar in scope - not like the days of "Read the Manual" for independent methods of color balance, batch changes, etc.

Seriously, take a look at Phocus. If you are familiar with RAW capture and processing, you may discover that it is not a stretch to master.

Don't believe what I say here - download it yourself and try it. If you have questions, I will help.

I understand the rolling of eyes about learning *yet another software* but it appears to most observers that current RAW processor workflow is very similar in scope - not like the days of "Read the Manual" for independent methods of color balance, batch changes, etc.

John's friend is certainly "challenged". Not so much in intelligence, but moreso in patience. I would have no issue switching to Hasselblad workflow, if I felt the calling, and if it proved efficient. I think it's a good thing that you're out there, put out the challenge, to come and watch and view and learn. You don't see much of that from Hasselblad.

And you don't see much of Hasselblad in the rental market and the Tech areas. I remember last summer, having a job to shoot in New York City, and after several calls, could not find one digital tech that was well-versed in Phocus, for tethering a job. The Hasselblad market seems geared more toward wealthy amateurs and and weekend warriors. Although I have heard that Hasselblad is entrenched more in the LA market than NYC. I think NYC is more Phase and Leaf.

I used FlexColor back when I owned the Imacon scanner, and when I briefly owned an H1D, (before returning it). Hopefully, Phocus has come a long way since FlexColor. FlexColor won the Emmy for "Most Tiny Windows Opened At Once, Yet You Never Know Which Ones Were Active".

Honestly, I think all of MF's days are numbered, so I think it's good that you or Hasselblad is out there, taking an active stake in keeping it all alive, and fighting the good fight. I know the old saying is: "Just wait for the next generation of Nikon and Canon to hit the streets", but in this case, I really do feel that. Time is ticking; now is the time to fight.

Gwitif knows his cameras. Obviously it seems it knows his cameras and probably has owned or tested every medium format back out there and it seems what he wants is a 5D2 in a medium format back.

Nobody makes that, probably never will because right now medium format is the Fuji 680 of the digital world, or better put the fuji 680 that shoots with a 35mm polaroid back for previews.

When it's right it right, but in todays world the versatility is limited and the client expectations so intense it's just hard to justify the time required.

Right now we've been casting all week. Stills and Video, 150 to 180 people per day, running two sets, all web galleries must be edited and online every night.

This is Canon territory and not because it doesn't matter in a casting, actually the casting is where this project lives or dies it is just with medium format, even if it shot video and stills, it wouldn't matter because it would take another two hours per night to process out jpegs for the galleries and right now we've working 7:30 am to 3:30 am to stay on deadline.

Now in a week we start shooting and a year or two ago this would have been a medium format job. The props are stylized but minimized, the lighting is high wattage and crafted, the location is the studio, but the shot list is off the scale.

Now here is the rub, I would love to shoot this job medium format and for 65% I could but for 35%, (the 35% that is make it or break it) I can't shoot slower, I can't work only in low iso, I can't always rely on being tethered and I can't keep changing out batteries every 3 1/2 hours.

Medium format has gotten incrementally better, but here's the rub #2. Working all week with the clients, they look at the previews coming off the camera and into the computer and say, "wow that looks beautiful" and this is just the no make up, non styled, semi lit casting and they love the quality of images they are seeing, so as much as I "want" to shoot this job a different format, even don't mind beating myself up a little I have to think is it really worth the time, the risk, the extra effort when I hear "wow that looks beautiful"?

Now on to rub #3. Medium format knows what we need, knows the price points, knows the flexibility that's required today, knows that backups are imperative and I think is try to get there, though the movement is glacial compared to 35mm. I think Hasselblad gets closest, just because they have a more detailed lcd and is trying to do something about autofocus, though it is still difficult to understand why a digital back can't produce a detailed jpeg along with a raw file, or why they are stuck in 100, to 200 iso ccd land and why a frame rate of 1.2 frames a second seems monumental compared to the previous .9 fps.

The dealers on this forum talk about superior image quality and in "some" conditions they are correct, but not getting the shot, going behind schedule, making our life more difficult is not an option for a lot of paying work that is coming our way.

Now to me the biggest part of all this is Gwitif, me and a lot of people own or have owned medium format so we are predisposed to continue with it, but give the conditions we now work under, it's difficult to go that direction, even more difficult to spend may tens of thousands of dollars just to get an incremental improvement from the previous camera or digital back.

Still, this is almost a mute discussion, because medium format knows what the working professional requires . . . today, though just giving us more megapixels, taking comparison photos of brick walls, or charts doesn't do it, but as I've said before, don't ask a photographer what they want, ask the client.

Obviously it seems it knows his cameras and probably has owned or tested every medium format back out there and it seems what he wants is a 5D2 in a medium format back.

I growed up shooting medium format. My entire life. I do not want to give it up. But Cooter makes some good points -- at some point, the job requirements are make (force) to me to choose a certain camera to work with. Everything you do now is expensive -- more shots in one day; more options crammed into a tighter time frame.

I'd love nothing more than a H body that fit in my hand like an old 203 Hasselblad did, or even my old Fuji 680III. But there's no vertical grip for that H2 body, and there's simply nothing more unnatural than shooting that H2 body in vertical formal all day, handheld. The old Contax fit much better with the vertical grip. It just "clicked" when you held it, felt right. You never see any design considerations with these MF companies about how things FEEL; everything is just about numbers and resolution and clinical issues. Photographers, for the most part, are not computers -- they are living, breathing, romantic, sensitive creatures -- you can't hand them a bar of soap and expect them to embrace it.

I think so many people are now in a fight between what they WANT to shoot, versus what they're FORCED to shoot. There's a good two-part interview with Sam Jones, over on A Photo Editor. But his rub is still Film versus Digital; not so much H2 versus 5D2, (although he's using the 5D2 for expermimental film projects). If you want a good read, go check it out. Very real world.

There's a Part One and a Part Two. Don't miss Part Two either. Look at how that RZ renders a lot of his frames. That's why people WANT to make MediumFormat continue to work for them.

I open up my bag at the start of the job and still feel slight embarrassment at shooting Canon. I think to myself, "Wow, what a pussy I am; wimping out with this toy camera". But at the end of the day, no glitches in software, an awesome bright accurate LCD on the 5D2, and I shoot very fast and rarely miss a facial expression. I just set the Sharpness to 3, run the files in DPP, and never have a resolution problem. Absolutely stunning files, for CMYK application.

With the P45+, I'm squinting at that shitty LCD, trying to figure out what the highlights are doing, and still using 3.79 because of the crashes with version 4 of Capture One, and ironically, got an email today from Phase wanting me to beta test version 5. I thought to myself, "Hell, you never got version 4 right; so is that the solution -- just bring out version 5?"

With Canon, it just WORKS. You shoot pictures, you get a check. You can train ANY assistant to run EOS Utility and DPP coupled. No need for a Digital Tech, with his demands, and his Kart, and his Excess Baggage charges. And no bullshit with tethering, like with CaptureOne 4. (No idea with Phocus).

I really think that MF should concentrate on landscape guys, because their demands are so less. Less complaints from the Brick Walls and MTF Lab Coat crowd.

Again, I *want* to stick with MF, but man, after such a struggle, you just think, "Is it worth it?" Years and years gone by with MF, and all we've got is more resolution and the same awful LCD. At some point, it's time to cut rope, wish them well, but move on.

PS: I just think that a camera should rest in your hand the same if it's vertical than when it's in horizontal. In the old days, you'd just rotate the back, (680), or with Hasselblad, it was square, so non-issue. I don't see why vertical format should be treated as second-class citizen.

@Gwhitf,Why not use Capture One ?One program for both cameras, I can't wait for the Leaf support myself.Only have to learn your assistant one program and you can switch cameras in seconds.

To be honest I hardly shoot without a laptop on location when it really matters, but since the 5DmkII I have to add that I finally have a camera I like that much that I don't have a doubt in my mind to switch when needed. But one program for both solutions would be heaven. Even the display of the 5DmkII doesn't show me exactly what I want to see, but I have to add it's 100% better than what I see on MF cameras, and that REALLY puzzles me, it should be that expensive.

Maybe it's that's why I'm so used to using a laptop on location now that even with the DSLR I'm using it whenever possible.

The perfect camera will never be released, but maybe someday there is a MF camera that is actually a 5D with a larger sensor, add leaf shutter lenses and we're pretty close.Will it happen ?

ive been forced into using c1 4.5 for a while now. initially its got some parts that are a pain in the ass, ie, its useless importing and file renaming. but now i have my head around it (that takes a bit) i am finding it quite a bit nicer than c1 3. the last few versions haven't crashed on me at all. it runs fast, and has really good speed, even with a laptop. the previews are really nice as well.

if you can tolerate canons bloody awful software, then you really should try and learn c1 4.5, its 10x better.

are you missing your contax? besides the dark finder and slower focus, isnt that a lot of what you want in a medium format camera?

i really like the p45s file, but you must doing you head in with shooting at 1 frame per 2 seconds. im hoping c1 4.5 will work with an aptus 75s, then there will a good file sixe and good speed, at a affordable price.

I know that it's cool to slam the Canon software, but I absolutely love it. Again, once you get your head around it, its simplicity is even elegant in a way. It doesn't bog you down with a bunch of unnecessary features -- its only job is to tether quickly.

(It's almost like there should be separate applications for Tethering/Capturing, apart from Processing. There should be a stripped-down, bare-bones, Ford Pinto version of every software, and the only features are for FAST tethering. Everything else is disabled. The only goal of this tethering software is to capture the file, see the preview, and get it backed up. And then once you get back home, and the pressure is off, you could transfer the files to your big computer, from the laptop, and that have the big Processing Application on the big G5 tower).

That's why I avoid CaptureOne 4, it just seems so bloated for laptop tethering. Even on my souped-up MacBook Pro.

The Canon software is just braindead easy. And I love how the tags that you set in the camera body are picked up in the software. Not sure that any non-Canon software would pick up the tags. I have started setting my White Balance using the Color Temperature in the camera body; I am now very quick to go there, change the color temp, in the same way that I'd add CC filters to the ProShade, in the old days. The Canon DPP software picks up that Color Temperature tag.

I know I'm a hard customer to please, but I just refuse to get overburdened with some stupid Tethering Kart, and some Attitude Digital Tech. I just won't have it. Period. I use Photo Assistants that I train, to run EOS Utility. I bring them in on off days and train them on how to run DPP and EOS Util. That way, I'm not dependent on any one digital tech. The whole Dog and Pony Show is just increasingly tiresome; I just won't do it any more. Read that Sam Jones interview on APhotoEditor -- it's now gotten so bad that they run TWO digital tech karts -- a main one, and then a Client Kart. No f'ing way will I ever do that. It's gotten out of control.

Quote from: paul_jones

Gwhitf,

ive been forced into using c1 4.5 for a while now. initially its got some parts that are a pain in the ass, ie, its useless importing and file renaming. but now i have my head around it (that takes a bit) i am finding it quite a bit nicer than c1 3. the last few versions haven't crashed on me at all. it runs fast, and has really good speed, even with a laptop. the previews are really nice as well.

if you can tolerate canons bloody awful software, then you really should try and learn c1 4.5, its 10x better.

are you missing your contax? besides the dark finder and slower focus, isnt that a lot of what you want in a medium format camera?

i really like the p45s file, but you must doing you head in with shooting at 1 frame per 2 seconds. im hoping c1 4.5 will work with an aptus 75s, then there will a good file sixe and good speed, at a affordable price.

I know that it's cool to slam the Canon software, but I absolutely love it. Again, once you get your head around it, its simplicity is even elegant in a way. It doesn't bog you down with a bunch of unnecessary features -- its only job is to tether quickly.

(It's almost like there should be separate applications for Tethering/Capturing, apart from Processing. There should be a stripped-down, bare-bones, Ford Pinto version of every software, and the only features are for FAST tethering. Everything else is disabled. The only goal of this tethering software is to capture the file, see the preview, and get it backed up. And then once you get back home, and the pressure is off, you could transfer the files to your big computer, from the laptop, and that have the big Processing Application on the big G5 tower).

That's why I avoid CaptureOne 4, it just seems so bloated for laptop tethering. Even on my souped-up MacBook Pro.

The Canon software is just braindead easy. And I love how the tags that you set in the camera body are picked up in the software. Not sure that any non-Canon software would pick up the tags. I have started setting my White Balance using the Color Temperature in the camera body; I am now very quick to go there, change the color temp, in the same way that I'd add CC filters to the ProShade, in the old days. The Canon DPP software picks up that Color Temperature tag.

I know I'm a hard customer to please, but I just refuse to get overburdened with some stupid Tethering Kart, and some Attitude Digital Tech. I just won't have it. Period. I use Photo Assistants that I train, to run EOS Utility. I bring them in on off days and train them on how to run DPP and EOS Util. That way, I'm not dependent on any one digital tech. The whole Dog and Pony Show is just increasingly tiresome; I just won't do it any more. Read that Sam Jones interview on APhotoEditor -- it's now gotten so bad that they run TWO digital tech karts -- a main one, and then a Client Kart. No f'ing way will I ever do that. It's gotten out of control.

hi, i was forced into using canon software for months until phase supported it, then i had to use it for the super fast tethering that you told me about- the sending jpegs instead of raws to the computer, saving raws on card. that worked so well, i used that for a few months as well. i tried so hard to understand and like canon software, i might be dumb, but i just found it un-intuitive, and awkward. i also found it quite unstable, especially when using live view (although thats the only software for that). i counted four crashes when i had my new macbook pro in day. as soon as apple sped up usb, i moved back to c1 4, but that was a hassle until version 4.5 something. but now it really is ok. not perfect, but its really worth trying, even if you never end up shooting a phase back with it, its worth it for the canon alone.

but, you cant shoot jpegs and store raws with c1 4.5, canon wont let you in the camera. so if you are sold on the lightning quick jepg transfers, then canon software is the only way to go.

but, you cant shoot jpegs and store raws with c1 4.5, canon wont let you in the camera. so if you are sold on the lightning quick jepg transfers, then canon software is the only way to go.

Paul:

Another benefit of the 5D2 over the 1ds3, (and the updated driver for USB), is that the file size is smaller, and there's less to cram thru that pipe. As a result, we've gone back to shooting RAW ONLY, and sending the RAW to EOS Utility.

Also, there's no way with the 5D2 to send the JPG separately. I guess they kill that, to force you to buy the 1ds3 (or 1ds4).

Still, the 5d2 RAW gets sent VERY fast now, with EOS Utility.

I am selling both of my 1ds3's, and probably my entire H2/P45+ system. I just couldn't be much happier than with the 5d2, for commerce. I keep trying to find a reason to keep the H, but it gets harder to find each day. It just stays in the bag, unused, when the pressure is on. It's not so much a limitation with the H system; it's more of a frustration with the P45+ speed, or lack of, and of course, the untrustable LCD.

I am selling both of my 1ds3's, and probably my entire H2/P45+ system. I just couldn't be much happier than with the 5d2, for commerce. I keep trying to find a reason to keep the H, but it gets harder to find each day. It just stays in the bag, unused, when the pressure is on. It's not so much a limitation with the H system; it's more of a frustration with the P45+ speed, or lack of, and of course, the untrustable LCD.

(i almost never post here... but love the read)

Gw... do you really find the 5DmkII that enthralling? I'm NOT being a smart ass. I've shot canon for years. Stepped into the sony system for a bit last year and the IQ was heads and toes above my 5dmkII.

It is a great camera, the 5dmkII. I does what it does... and does it well... as long as it's not moving much (and even still subjects are prone to unbelievable feats of AF nothingness). I just find the IQ sorely lacking. No "zing", No life.

I guess you're right. What the client wants is what we shoot... I just hope the mkII isn't what they all want. I hate it. I hold hopes that the MF makers do end up with a responsive camera one of these days, but I'll not bet on it. The backs are the bottleneck. I'm lucky, my client lets me shoot what I want (I'm the in-house photog/designer for an up-and-coming clothing brand). Guess I got lucky.

I think I'm going to shoot the next catalog on 4x5 fuji instant fp100c, lol.

Honestly, in terms of file quality, it doesn't matter what camera you put in my hand, because I'm going to work it to death, to get my thumbprint on it anyway. So hand me a Sony, a Nikon, a Canon, a Fuji point/shoot, whatever.

But the goal is to get the shot, and nail the exposure, and know that you lit it right, ideally without being forced to use a laptop, tethered, on every single frame. The goal is freedom; the goal is trust, with the LCD quality feedback.

It amazes me, these Lab Coat Guys on this board, (over)analyzing one camera to the next -- it's as if, if they ever take an actual photograph, that there's some law in their state that says, "You've got to deliver this image normal, untouched, unmanipulated". So, as a result, they feel compelled to find the best dynamic range out there. Or whatever else kind of Spec.

For me, the RAW file is the very rough starting point, and that's when the zillions of Adjustment Layers and burning/dodging begin. So, in a way, who cares what camera you use, as long as you nail the facial expression and the exposure? And for me, the camera that gives the highest percentage of "nailing it" is the 5D2. (Given, if I was a landscape guy, and I really sold prints for a living, and they were 40x60 or so, maybe the P65 or so would be the choice). But with H2 or most anything MF, the mirror slap is scary enough that it requires a tripod, so that begins to really slow you down. And the LCD is not trustable. And the ASA limits are very low. Those factors pretty much require you to shoot landscape, still life, interiors, architecture, or dead people. You'd think, after this many years, if they were going to get high ASA out of a CCD chip, they'd have done it by now. So everything else that you see, like that Sensor Plus marketing stuff, is just Smoke and Mirrors. Who's actually going to write a $45,000 check for a back that shoots a 15MP file? Please.

Still, given the choice, I'd reach for the H2 every single day, due to the optical quality and the way it renders a scene, but in the end, the other limitations just force it to stay in the camera bag.